C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

“May I” Reset the Record?

Is something wrong with our universe, or just with our science?
HINT: Maybe it is the theory “science” uses to understand the universe that is wrong!!!

I was delighted to see this month (April, when I was writing this) that both Scientific American, and Science News had cover articles about problems with our universe, and the Big Bang.  The April 2011 issue of Scientific American featured an article about quantum gaps in the Big Bang theory, and how that theory must be either fixed or replaced.  Shortly after that, Science News for April 23, 2011 had a cover article about cosmic questions, unraveling the universe’s greatest mysteries.

Both magazines stated that there is good evidence that scientists DO NOT understand the basic workings of our universe, and there is more mystery than certainty about the ultimate fate of this universe.  The Scientific American article pointed out that inflation, where the universe was thought to have expanded greatly in a very brief period immediately after the initial Big Bang, had more opportunities to ruin our universe than to get it just right.  The author, Paul J. Steinhardt, covered the case for inflation, and the equally (if not more-) compelling case against it.  His conclusion is that new data, which should be acquired this year, may confirm or reject the case for the initial wave of inflation.

The Science News articles featured a group of 5 different (but related) articles by different authors, mostly reviewing science’s lack of understanding why our universe’s behavior seems so mysterious.  To interested readers, I would call your attention to the box on page 21, and two specific items of interest: (1): In 1917, Einstein applies general relativity to the universe, and then, later work by Willem de Sitter and Aleksandr Friedmann IMPLIES the possibility that the universe might be expanding.  Now, combine this with (2): In 1929, Hubble finds that the universe is expanding after analyzing the red shifts of distant galaxies.

“Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding” : This is where a loud warning-bell should clang, and science should take note: This IS where the starting ERROR LIES ( pun intended).

The C-R theory maintains that these two items from the Science News chart summarize nicely EXACTLY WHERE the MISTAKE was made.  The C-R theory, almost alone, points out that: WHOA Nellie (an old saying, stopping a runaway horse, or cautioning against too great a leap of connection), there is ANOTHER POSSIBILITY, overlooked these many years.  

That new possibility is: The increasing red shift with distance HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the universe EXPANDING, but comes entirely from gravitational curvature, where matter ELSEWHERE is NOT just LIKE matter here on earth, but is subtlely changed, i.e., slowed-down, warped, bent, distorted {as in, elongated-pathway for light, stretched-out, taking MORE TIME to make the same-distance journey}.

THIS IS where science’s BIGGEST MISTAKE of the last 100 years happened.  Two unconnected items, a speculation about this universe from a theory, and a legitimate observation about increasing red shifts with increased distance, were taken as PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, when reasonable doubt SHOULD HAVE won the battle!!!

Wishful thinking, topped with real evidence (in favor of expansion) were taken as proof, when what should have happened was for legitimate critics to challenge that the increasing red shifts could also be due to curving of spacetime (also an idea from general relativity, discarded in the process).

Just this last year, scientists demonstrated that when one atomic clock was lifted up by a “measly 33 cm” in earth’s gravity, it ran faster by a minuscule amount.  This item MUST NOW BE CONSIDERED, in light of the ALMOST UNIVERSAL acceptance [of the red shift-expansion = PROOF] which has ignored the REAL alternative.  This idea has been taken seriously by almost NO ONE, except for the C-R theory.

Coincidentally, it is this very effect, where gravitational curvature CAUSES the time slowdown [and NEVER operates in THE REVERSE, where GRAVITY first causes the curvature], where the C-R theory claims that science has “put the CART before the HORSE”.

This is why the C-R theory claims “You must try to understand this FUNDAMENTAL concept, where it IS the slowdown of spacetime, or gravitational curvature, in effect, changing the properties of mass, {packing-in more energy, or squeezing-out more energy} that CAUSES the aftereffect we notice as gravity.” It IS this “change in expectations” that has lead to a total change in behavior expected from gravity.

In short: Curvature ALWAYS causes gravity.  NEVER, ever, does gravity CAUSE curvature.  The two ARE NOT equivalent, and are not interchangeable, one IS NOT the same as the other.  There is a clear, MASTER-slave type relationship here, but curvature is the real ruler, the true champion, with gravity as the dependant.  Science has had the roles reversed these last 90 some years, and missed completely the cause-effect relationship.  (And, the misunderstanding of the ENTIRE universe WAS the result.)

To restate this simply, if the universe, as it is seen, does not make perfectly good sense to you, TRY CHANGING THE THEORY YOU USE to understand it with.  [STRONG HINT to the home-reader: Try the C-R theory first, since this IS it’s website HERE.]

As an example, let us consider a simple case of a hypothetical bowling ball.  (I do not, in fact, own one.) If I were to seriously propose to you home readers that MY bowling ball was expanding in size continually, always increasing in mass, and always doing so at an increasing rate: I would be dismissed as seriously deluded, and mostly ignored.

Compare this to your generally accepted cosmologist, describing YOUR universe in exactly those same terms: Ever increasing size, ever accelerating, with NO KNOWN available source of energy to do so, and THE WORLD accepts it, grudgingly, because “they must know what they’re talking about”.

Since they ARE IDENTICAL claims in both cases, but one is vastly larger in scope, should not the same standards of evaluation be applied?

If the case of my bowling ball “expanding without limit” is ridiculous, should the much bigger claim of our universe “expanding without limit” NOT BE even MORE ridiculous? Yet the world of science would mock the smaller one, and accept the larger one as a mystery, or a gift, from dark matter.

Should not science be consistent, especially on an increasing scale?

To further refine this point, back around 1930, when a minimal amount of energy was missing in the hydrogen fusion reaction, where 4 hydrogen atoms fused into 1 helium atom and two electrons [needing two neutrinos to make up the difference].  Invoking “Conservation of Energy”, Wolfgang Pauli (thinking for science) demanded a “new particle”, the neutrino, be invoked to account for that “missing energy”.

Yet, when science has been confronted with an “overpayment” of energy, to keep our universe constantly expanding at an accelerating rate, “wink, wink”, dark energy has been invoked to explain the result, rather than DEMANDING the common sense notion that: Maybe our universe is NOT EXPANDING, and NOT ACCELERATING in that expansion, but appears “AS-IS” for a good reason.  THAT is the approach that the C-R theory takes.

The REAL reason for increasing red shift with distance is: This universe IS NOT the same “out there” as it is, here on earth.  Rather, curvature changes matter there, and warps it, or “slows it down”.  The further out we go, the more slowed-down matter gets, in EVERY direction.

The best way to demonstrate this is that there is ALSO one region of increasing blue -shift, called “The Great Attractor”.  This COULD BE taken as “evidence” that we live inside a closed universe, and we ARE NOT at the center.

The real reason that there is not ANY imprint from concentrated masses on the 2.7 K background radiation, is that it is not at all related to a big bang, but is averaged-out background noise, more akin to the roar of a waterfall (but coming equally from all directions).

NOTE: The C-R theory has gone on record PREDICTING that the 2.7 K will not red shift over time, or cool down, but will remain constant over time.  Just check back in a couple billion years, and we should have a good answer.  (I wish I could speed it up to get YOU the answer quicker.)

A second way to tell, go to another location in this universe, and the 2.7 K should change.  If you go closer to the “Great Attractor”, the temperature will cool off, and go lower, but if you go further outside, towards the outer edges, the temperature of the background should get higher than 2.7 K.

The net irony was, when we felt cheated for a neutrino’s worth of energy (plus some angular momentum), Conservation of Energy was called-upon.  When we (as a universe) were perceived to be “OVERPAID, energy-wise”, to expand this universe, science was considerably MORE RELUCTANT to invoke that same CONSERVATION of ENERGY.

Instead of using everyday, common sense, they have embarked upon an unsuccessful (and fictional?) snipe-hunt (hunting earnestly for a non-existent item), looking for dark matter.

Along a similar path, in the similar hunt for dark matter, that mysterious missing mass needed to explain why galaxies hold together, science has again overlooked the real answer, the one which is so simple and straightforward, the answer that can be derived from simply LOOKING at the evidence already at hand.

What holds together those galaxy arms, keeping them circling-around the outside of the galaxy at nearly the same speed as in the inside of the galaxy? How about ELECTROMAGNETISM? It is simple, and it is easy.  All we need is for there to be more electrical current flowing within the interstellar medium, and for those magnetic fields to constrict, scrunch, pinch, and hold-together those stars.

In previous blogs, I have gone over some of the evidence that explains why the C-R theory EXPECTS there to be so much electrical current flowing within galaxies, and that is an excuse for the curious readers to read more of the C-R theory’s earlier items.  I did advocate in an earlier blog, before looking for a mysterious new force, why not try to rule-out the already known process of magnetic fields.  After-all, the electrical force is some 1040 times stronger than the gravitational force, on an atom by atom level.

Anyone doubting that there is sufficient electrical activity within a galaxy need look no further than our own solar system.  There is so much electrical activity, on so many vast scales, it should be difficult to miss (or to ignore).  Staying closer-in than Pluto, there are so many KNOWN electrical clues, like thunderstorms, lightning, aurorae, solar winds, and the like going-on, can anyone question whether magnetism is a viable candidate to replace dark mass?

Certainly, there is not enough mass in a galaxy to have gravity explain why it holds together.  However, electromagnetism can concentrate, guide, move, and explain why the outermost parts of the galaxy rotate at the same speed as the innermost parts.  (Look at any fan-blade while it rotates, for example.)

Thanks for visiting the C-R theory, and checking out the blogs.  If you cannot accept all of my ideas, that’s OK, just keep them in mind.  My goal is as much to get readers to think where to look, and what to look for.  If I can plant the seeds of C-R type logic, and show it’s reasonableness, I do not mind losing the “battle” today to win the war sometime down the road.

If I can get the home-readers to consider these ideas, and really think about them, I believe I have accomplished something good.  It is only when these items become obvious, and people stop to really consider what is seen, that the C-R theory seems a better alternative.

I welcome any theory which can more logically, and more simply reconcile what is seen in this universe with what is believed to be going on.  I offer the C-R theory, for free, as a better alternative to the Big Bang, and a return to common sense (and, energy accountability).